W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > July 2011

Re: JSON-LD Telecon Minutes for 2011-07-04

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:48:23 -0400
Message-ID: <4E2E2AF7.2020202@digitalbazaar.com>
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
On 07/21/2011 09:48 AM, glenn mcdonald wrote:
>     Level 1: JSON
>     Level 2: JSON-SD (Structured Data)
>     Level 3: JSON-LD (Linked Data)
>
>     JSON-SD allows for IRI-less nodes.
>     JSON-SD ensures that all properties are IRIs.
>     JSON-SD ensure that all values can be strings, properties, IRIs or
>     IRI-less identifiers.
>
> Sorry, this now seems even more arbitrary to me. If we're arguing that
> we have to allow IRI-less nodes to accommodate non-LD JSON stuff, then I
> defy you to justify the requirement that properties be IRIs. Essentially
> nobody on earth who isn't already an RDF advocate uses IRIs as keys in
> key-value structures. They use strings.

I think we're mis-communicating. What I mean is that the JSON key, which 
is a string, is expanded out to an IRI using the @context.

> And does the third line actually mean anything? Is there anything it
> excludes?

It excludes graph literals, for the time being. I haven't put much 
thought into what else it might exclude. Here are the things that I 
would expect to be expressible in the JSON-SD syntax:

strings (aka: plain literals), strings with associated language 
information, typed literals, integers (xsd:integer), doubles 
(xsd:double), IRIs, bnode identifiers, embedded sub-graphs, and arrays 
of values (sets of all of the previously mentioned items).

> JSON already is "structured data" by its definition. I understand the
> idea of standardizing a way to represent directed, labeled graphs in
> JSON. I do not understand the point of this "JSON-SD" thing at all.

The point of JSON-SD is to draw a line between what Kingsley and you are 
calling Linked Data, and the "thing" that some of the rest of us need in 
order to make our systems work. The argument that I've been hearing from 
both you and Kingsley is that we're mis-using the "Linked Data" name to 
describe what we're attempting to do.

So, we're dropping it in favor of something that doesn't use the "Linked 
Data" name, but still supports Linked Data and useful bits of non-Linked 
Data mixed with Linked Data. We're calling this combination of 
non-Linked Data and Linked Data - "Structured Data".

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Uber Comparison of RDFa, Microformats and Microdata
http://manu.sporny.org/2011/uber-comparison-rdfa-md-uf/
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 02:48:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:30 UTC